11–20 of 492 posts
"faster than C" almost always boils down to different designs, implementations, algorithms, etc. Perhaps it is faster than already-existing implementations, sure, but not "faster than C", and it is odd to make such claims.
"faster than C" almost always boils down to different designs, implementations, algorithms, etc. Perhaps it is faster than already-existing implementations, sure, but not "faster than C", and it is odd to make such claims.
The fact that it's faster than the C implementation that surely had more time and effort put into it doesn't look good for C here.
"faster than C" almost always boils down to different designs, implementations, algorithms, etc. Perhaps it is faster than already-existing implementations, sure, but not "faster than C", and it is odd to make such claims.
zlib-ng can be compiled to whatever target arch is necessary, and the original post doesn't mention how it was compiled and what architecture and so on.
It's another case not to trust micro benchmarks
It's barely faster. I would say it's more accurate to say it's as fast as C, which is still a great achievement.
It's... basically written in C. I'm no expert on zlib/deflate or related algorithms, but digging around https://github.com/trifectatechfoundation/zlib-rs/ almost every block with meaningful logic is marked unsafe. There's raw allocation management, raw slicing of arrays, etc... This code looks and smells like C, and very much not like rust. I don't know that this is a direct transcription of the C code, but if you we…
Unsafe Rust still has to conform to many of Rust’s rules. It is meaningfully different than C.
It's barely faster. I would say it's more accurate to say it's as fast as C, which is still a great achievement.
It's... basically written in C. I'm no expert on zlib/deflate or related algorithms, but digging around https://github.com/trifectatechfoundation/zlib-rs/ almost every block with meaningful logic is marked unsafe. There's raw allocation management, raw slicing of arrays, etc... This code looks and smells like C, and very much not like rust. I don't know that this is a direct transcription of the C code, but if you we…
It's barely faster. I would say it's more accurate to say it's as fast as C, which is still a great achievement.
It's... basically written in C. I'm no expert on zlib/deflate or related algorithms, but digging around https://github.com/trifectatechfoundation/zlib-rs/ almost every block with meaningful logic is marked unsafe. There's raw allocation management, raw slicing of arrays, etc... This code looks and smells like C, and very much not like rust. I don't know that this is a direct transcription of the C code, but if you we…
unsafe {
let x_tmp0 = _mm_clmulepi64_si128(xmm_crc0, crc_fold, 0x10);
xmm_crc0 = _mm_clmulepi64_si128(xmm_crc0, crc_fold, 0x01);
xmm_crc1 = _mm_xor_si128(xmm_crc1, x_tmp0);
xmm_crc1 = _mm_xor_si128(xmm_crc1, xmm_crc0);
Presumably with inline assembly both languages can emit what is effectively the same machine code. Is the Rust compiler a better optimizing compiler than C compilers?
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's... basically written in C. I'm no expert on zlib/deflate or related algorithms, but digging around https://github.com/trifectatechfoundation/zlib-rs/ almost every block with meaningful logic is marked unsafe. There's raw allocation management, raw slicing of arrays, etc... This code looks and smells like C, and very much not like rust. I don't know that this is a direct transcription of the C code, but if you we…
> basically written in C Unsafe Rust still has to conform to many of Rust’s rules. It is meaningfully different than C.